BILL CLINTON'S HOPES FOR NATIONAL SERVICE REMAIN JUST THAT

Hundreds of times in last year's campaign, President Clinton evoked thunderous cheers with the promise that he would "establish a trust out of which any American can borrow the money to finance a college education, as long as they pay it back with a small percentage of their income over time or with two or three years of national service here at home . . . doing whatever work the country urgently needs."

The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 and the legislation permitting direct government loans to students, both well on their way to the president for signature, fall short of redeeming that pledge. Even in their pared-down form it's questionable if the government can finance them. But they represent a serious-and bipartisan-effort to move national policy forward in this area and to show voters that campaign rhetoric can translate into agenda-setting action.

The direct-loan program had to survive heavy lobbying by financial firms that profit from brokering government-guaranteed bank loans. To appease them, the compromise version in the budget reconciliation bill calls for direct loans to be phased in slowly over the next five years.

It was Clinton's support that offset the lobby pressure and made it possible, finally, for people like Reps. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) and Robert E. Andrews (D-N.J.), Sens. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) and Dave Durenberger (R-Minn.), who had been pushing the direct-loan idea for years, to make headway.

On the national service legislation, the question for most members of Congress was not the goal but the pathway. During the campaign, Clinton escaped close questioning on how it would be possible for very many of the six million students now receiving some form of government aid to "pay back" their loans with public service.

Except for the World War II military and the Great Depression public works programs, the government has never had anything like that number of people working for it. The Peace Corps currently has only 5,500 volunteers in the field, while VISTA, its domestic counterpart, has about 3,300. The cost of the kind of program Clinton implied in the campaign would be out of sight.

In March, Clinton proposed a more modest but still expensive scheme. When the bill reached the Senate, Republicans forced further reductions in scale. No more than 100,000 youths will be involved in the three-year program. Each of them will work for the federal minimum wage in community-designed programs and, after two years of full-time service, be eligible for $9,450 in education grants-a sum chosen to assure that military volunteers would not see their civilian counterparts get a better deal.

Proponents of national service differ on the right scale, but this is a case where smaller may actually be better. Donald J. Eberly, a longtime proponent of national service, told me that he worries that the projected program may be too small to have "the visibility and mass it needs" to become a recognized part of American life. But Sen. Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kan.), who made significant contributions to improving the legislation, still voted against it for the opposite reason; she thinks it is too ambitious.

Catherine Milton, who runs what is widely regarded as a successful set of pilot programs through the 3-year-old Commission on National and Community Service, told me that she thinks "it will not be easy" to recruit and place 20,000 volunteers in the first year, as the new legislation contemplates. But she is supportive of the bill. And Eli Segal, the White House architect of national service, points out that if it hits the 20,000 level in its first year, the community service program will be larger than the Peace Corps was at its peak of visibility.

Critics of the proposal argue that it is just one more big government bureaucracy, meddling in an area where there are plenty of local and private efforts under way. But the structure is highly decentralized, and overhead costs are limited by law to 6 percent at the federal and the state level.

A more serious problem is that once authorized, the new program will have to scramble for financing. As with other campaign promises, Clinton said, "This program will pay for itself." It won't. Instead, it will have to compete for money in a budget where discretionary domestic spending is frozen for the next five years. In the House, it will fight for funds with all the existing student- and school-aid programs; in the Senate, it will be up against environmental programs, low-income housing, veterans hospitals and space programs.

Sen. Harris Wofford (D-Pa.), who helped Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) shepherd the legislation through a great many Senate minefields, told me he counts on Clinton "increasing our investment in education . . . so I don't think there will be that competition in the next few years."

But that is more hope than reality. Many legislators who support the concept of national service voted against the bill, because they thought it unrealistic and unfair to promise even a down payment against Clinton's campaign promise in these times of massive federal debt.

On paper, Clinton has won a substantial victory. It remains to be seen if it becomes reality.